41 réponses à ce sujet

[devSin]

I don't think there are any technological issues with it, and I'm not sure it matters in terms of the conversation (assuming you have to return to a "safe zone" to speak with the characters anyway, even if they are a companion), though I would miss the sorts of subplots we had for the companions in Origins and DA2.

 

But perhaps they'll act as temporary followers in their own quest chains, or there will be some other type of plot where they can be involved without being active companions? Or perhaps there will be no companion-specific quests this time (I believe David has said they won't return to the multiple quests like DA2, but I'm not sure if he's indicated their existence at all)?

 

It will be interesting to see how they compare to the companion romances if it is something they utilize in Inquisition. Personally, I think I would miss just the perception of intimacy in having the romance partner actively accompanying you on the adventure, even if the actual dialogue content was roughly equivalent, but that's probably an entirely different discussion to have.

[Dean_the_Young]

That sounds kind of boring. So if - hypothetically speaking of course - you fail to check back, you can miss out? Bioware boasted that companionships and romances were very story driven and deeply ingrained. This concept of "checking back in" feels... disjointed. I mean, at least in theory. I have no idea how it will actually be - I know. I'm just still confused. 

Also how would your NPC romance know anything about what happened? Carrier pigeon? lol

 

Checking back in was a requirement regardless: even DAO didn't let you get all dialogue (and especially romance) unless you went back to camp to chat them up, while DA2 also had you go back to bases to talk to the companions.

 

NPC romances can hear by rumors, your other companions, and so on- same way that quest givers often hear about your great successes before the player actually returns.

 

Neither of these are new issues.

[Former_Fiend]

I also wouldn't be surprised if several of these key "events" take place at the keep, or in a city, or somewhere where a romanceable npc has an excuse to be, rather than out on the road in combat.

 

Like Allan said, we can't know how this would affect NPC romance without knowing what does and doesn't qualify as an "event".

 

I'd also posit that one of the primary reasons I support NPC romances is that there is an inherent drama and story potential in a relationship where the two don't spend the majority of their time together and aren't equals; something where your love interest isn't a trained fighter who can stand by your side, or even if they have duties that require them to be elsewhere where they can't watch your back. The kind of worry that goes into a relationship where one party knows the other is going into life threatening situations and there's nothing they can do to help isn't something that's made it into a Dragon Age game thus far, and I think it's something worth exploring.

[NRieh]

 

There's a difference between mutual event experience and unshared/disassociated event experience.

ME1 - footlocker scene, happens even if you (for whatever reasons) never use potential LI as a squadmember. 

DA2 - chapter 2, Quentin aftermath scene, happens even if you (for whatever reason) never had your LI in your party.  

NWN1 - the whole romance happens with a person, that is not even available as a party member.

 

So, can anyone explain, why would it become an issue in DAI?    

[TanithAeyrs]

I have to agree with Former Fiend on NPC romances.  I think they would add an extra role playing element to the game.  A PC and LI that were separate much of the time and had different duties to attend to seems like a great way for the writers to maintain romantic tension.  It also offers opportunities for the PC to develop a their personality with more complexity.  For example, if your PC was romancing Cullen (who seems like a good candidate for the person who is in charge of your keep, or possibly an important liaison with the Templars) and you were on a quest that involved blood mages, would you allow your romantic interest to influence how you dealt with them or hope he wouldn't find out if you sided with them.  Would you side with them and tell him later, or would you automatically side against them because of your LI.  A practical Inquisitor would do what most benefited the Inquisition, but human nature is not always practical. 

 

I am hoping that the game choices and consequences (both in general and those involving LI) will have the complexity that Celene's and Gaspard's decisions had in "The Masked Empire".

 

As the leader of the Inquistion I would expect my PC to check in with all important individuals every time they returned to their Keep.  We will be a playing a leader who has gathered some of the most powerful leaders of each faction under their banner.  An Inquisitor would be foolish to fail to gain their input as the situation changes.  Unless you are role playing an incredibly arrogant and headstrong Inquisitor (which might be fun) I don't see that it would be a great burden to connect with friends and LI's that were not party members. 

 

Just my two cents.

[In Exile]

My understanding is that this game is more open and explorable and not nearly as linear as the previous games - namely Dragon Age 2. The devs keep saying, "Don't worry about missing content because you can always go back and re-explore."

I'm confused as to how friendships/relationship scenes would be triggered unless you have a party member with you since there's all this exploration and re-exploration at any given time. I'm just going based off what the devs have been saying. Perhaps they are advertising the mechanics of the game wrong or I'm misunderstanding. I know this is not a fully open world game - I *get* that. But from what I have been reading, it was my understanding that Dragon Age Inquisition is very "adventure!" and you're on your feet most of the time, capable of traversing the areas in any which order you please, revisiting old places over and over, even if to be able to finally kill an enemy/enemies you were not able to kill before. 

I understand that the one area we would keep returning to (like our party camp) is the Keep. But with all the "open-ness" of the game, at what point during gameplay do we have to know to return to the keep in order to trigger conversations with npcs? Are we actually playing a more open game or are we still following a grocery list of "be here" and "go there"? If we don't return to the keep at a certain point, then we miss that relationship content? Confused. 

I'm just confused as to how an NPC relationship would work into this kind of marketed game. DAI is apparently not like the previous two games - they've been pushing the whole "it's more explorable!" thing. So to compare it to all these older games is irrelevant. 

 

While the game is not linear, there's been hints that the are ME2-like "plot progression" moments were you're taken away from the open world and have to advance the plot because you've done enough main-quest related things (which seem to relate to growing the Inquisition). 

 

So it's very possible to have the NPC romance interaction at those points. 

[Dean_the_Young]

My understanding is that this game is more open and explorable and not nearly as linear as the previous games - namely Dragon Age 2. The devs keep saying, "Don't worry about missing content because you can always go back and re-explore."

I'm confused as to how friendships/relationship scenes would be triggered unless you have a party member with you since there's all this exploration and re-exploration at any given time. I'm just going based off what the devs have been saying. Perhaps they are advertising the mechanics of the game wrong or I'm misunderstanding. I know this is not a fully open world game - I *get* that. But from what I have been reading, it was my understanding that Dragon Age Inquisition is very "adventure!" and you're on your feet most of the time, capable of traversing the areas in any which order you please, revisiting old places over and over, even if to be able to finally kill an enemy/enemies you were not able to kill before. 

I understand that the one area we would keep returning to (like our party camp) is the Keep. But with all the "open-ness" of the game, at what point during gameplay do we have to know to return to the keep in order to trigger conversations with npcs? Are we actually playing a more open game or are we still following a grocery list of "be here" and "go there"? If we don't return to the keep at a certain point, then we miss that relationship content? Confused. 

I'm just confused as to how an NPC relationship would work into this kind of marketed game. DAI is apparently not like the previous two games - they've been pushing the whole "it's more explorable!" thing. So to compare it to all these older games is irrelevant. 

 

What the devs have said and what you're saying have very little relation to each other. Your concerns make little sense because they're resting on presumptions you yourself are introducing.

 

NPC relationships would work the same as pretty much any other hub-based Bioware game, which is to say almost all of them. You go exploring, you go to camp for rest/restocking/trading companions/etc. Companions know about what's happened, even if they weren't there directly, and reflect upon the major story developments which serve as flags for new conversation content. Players understand that new dialogue opens up after significant content, and so voluntarily return to camp/base/follower homes as much as they want to check.

 

That the adventure portion is now more open-world context and can be returned to, as oppossed to one-time only areas, doesn't change how such a NPC system works.

[Bekkael]

Personally, I detest NPC romances.    If I can't have my LI as a follower and experience the game WITH them, then it's just a romance I'll pass on. I thought the NPC romances in ME2 and ME3 were incredibly sub-par and shoddy experiences compared to full companion romances. I'm really disappointed if the Dragon Age franchise decides to include this style of romance for DAI. I would rather no romance at all then to settle for something that I feel is such a dramatically inferior experience when compared to companion romance.

 

Also, has NPC romance been confirmed by devs, or is this just more fan speculation?

[In Exile]

Ah. See, I've not played any ME. (Well, I tried briefly but it didn't hold my interest. Off topic, anyway...) So I was not aware of how this could work.

But this does sound intriguing, I will admit.

The DAO example is how you meet Zevran. It doesn't matter what treaty quest you do but you have to do one. Then you have an automatic random encounter.

Another example is how Leliana's companion quest triggers - first time you travel with her somewhere after hitting X approval.

[Thomas Andresen]

Hers quite often does not trigger for me, even if I have her approval high. I've always been confused on that.

I think you also have to have had done a certain conversation with her first. The one that starts with "I lied to you, you know." That triggers automatically upon entering the camp after talking to her about her past.

[Former_Fiend]

Personally, I detest NPC romances.    If I can't have my LI as a follower and experience the game WITH them, then it's just a romance I'll pass on. I thought the NPC romances in ME2 and ME3 were incredibly sub-par and shoddy experiences compared to full companion romances. I'm really disappointed if the Dragon Age franchise decides to include this style of romance for DAI. I would rather no romance at all then to settle for something that I feel is such a dramatically inferior experience when compared to companion romance.

 

Also, has NPC romance been confirmed by devs, or is this just more fan speculation?

 

I for one have never denied that Bioware's NPC romances have been lacking up until now.

 

But I've also never seen this as a reason to abandon the concept; rather, I feel it is a challenge to Bioware to do better.

[Wolfen09]

its not like real life, where you have to go out into the world together, you just come back say hey this is what happened today out there, now lets get down and dirty

[NRieh]

 

I understand that the one area we would keep returning to (like our party camp) is the Keep. But with all the "open-ness" of the game, at what point during gameplay do we have to know to return to the keep in order to trigger conversations with npcs?

Using NWN1 as an example, you'll have to return to your [insert nearest current base\hub name] quite often.There must be one, and it can be anything - tavern, camp, keep. It can be routine (repairs, healing, restock, craft), returning minor quests or it can be advancing further the bigger plots. Returning to the  only homebase across half Thedas to fix the shield and brew a potion does not make much sense anyway, so I think it's safe to assume, that we're going to have a 'mobile hub'.  

 

Technically, NWN1 was also 'open' within the chapter  - you could pick any quest order and most of those were optional.

My guess is that we're going to have something similar here, once you return, you can have a common chat, progress the romance or discuss ongoing events.

 

Once again, I have no idea where have you heard about the 'NPC romance'. Unless that's how you refer to the party member that is not in active party. I'm yet to see a player, that does not have his\her LI in party 100% of the gameplay, though.